The Bombay High Court on Monday referred the question of whether the revisional authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act can condone delay in a landlord’s revision filed beyond 90 days to a larger Bench [Jaigopal Nagarajan v. Vasudev Mariwala & Ors.].

Justice Rajesh S Patil framed the reference while dealing with in a writ petition filed in 2011 by Lt Col (Retd) Jaigopal Nagarajan, a Chennai-based retired army officer seeking the eviction of his tenant from a flat in Pune under the special provisions available to members of the armed forces. 

The Court was dealing with the question of whether the revisional authority under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, has the power to condone the delayed filing of a revision application, when such a plea is filed after the 90‑day period prescribed in the proviso to that Section.

In the present case, Nagarajan had instituted eviction proceedings in 2008 before the competent authority under Section 23A of the Act on the grounds of requiring the flat's possession and pending payments of arrears from the tenant.

While the competent authority accepted his bona fide need, it dismissed his application on 27 August 2009 on the ground that he had not obtained the required certificate and had not proved that he was a landlord within the meaning of Section 23.

The retired officer then filed a revision application under Section 44 before the Additional Commissioner, Pune, along with an application to condone a 12‑day delay in filing. 

The Additional Commissioner rejected the condonation plea, effectively dismissing the revision plea, compelling Nagarajan to approach the High Court. 

Justice Patil emphasised that special provisions for members of the armed forces were introduced to alleviate the difficulty they face in recovering possession of their own premises due to the exigencies of service. 

He noted that while tenants against whom an order of eviction is passed have a revisional remedy subject to a 90‑day limit, a landlord whose application is dismissed has no statutory appeal or revision and would ordinarily be left to invoke the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.

The Court examined Supreme Court and High Court precedents which had held that the competent authority and revisional authority could not extend limitation in tenant-initiated proceedings under the Rent Control Act. 

Justice Patil observed that these rulings rendered in the context of tenants’ challenges did not consider the full scheme of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act or the position of special‑category landlords like armed forces personnel, and therefore could not automatically govern the present case.

Justice Patil held that a ‘harmonious consideration’ of procedure for the recovery of possession of rented premises required a fresh look at the revisional authority’s powers, where a landlord seeks a condonation of delay. 

The judge, therefore, referred the following question to a larger Bench of the Court:

“Whether the revisional authority under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has power to condone a delay if the revision is filed by a landlord beyond a period of 90 days?”

The papers have been directed to be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

Advocates JS Sarkhot and Megha Kulkarni appeared for the retired officers.

Advocates VB Tapkir for state authorities.

Senior Advocate Girish Godbole amicus curiae was assisted by advocate Kaustubh Thipsay.

[Read judgement]